Registered Sale Deed Without Executant’s Signature is Legally Infirm: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Over Family Property Dispute

“Additional Evidence Cannot Be Filed at Party’s Leisure Without Due Diligence”, In a significant ruling reaffirming the sanctity of procedural compliance and the burden of proof in civil disputes over ownership, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rejecting the appellant's attempt to claim possession of family property on the basis of a Sale Deed riddled with legal and factual anomalies.

The Court found that the appellant had utterly failed to establish ownership over the property in question, primarily because the alleged Sale Deed dated 27.10.1995, purportedly executed by the parties’ mother, lacked her signature and thumb impression on its last page—a defect the Court held to be fatal to its validity.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, while delivering the judgment, observed that “even though a Sale Deed is registered, if it lacks essential components such as the signature or thumb impression of the executant, the document cannot be presumed to be valid or binding.”

"The Signature of the Executant is Not a Formality; Its Absence Renders the Document Defective and Unreliable"

The appellant, Ashwani Kumar Srivastava, had filed a civil suit in 2016 against his brother, Akhilesh Srivastava, seeking possession of the ground floor of a residential property in Hardev Puri, Delhi, claiming to have purchased it from their mother, Shakuntala Srivastava, through a registered Sale Deed for ₹75,000. He further alleged that the respondent was living in the property merely as a licensee and had refused to vacate despite multiple legal notices.

The Trial Court, in its judgment dated 28th May 2019, dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant had failed to prove ownership and that the document relied upon was questionable on several counts. Challenging this decision, the appellant approached the High Court under appellate jurisdiction, also seeking to introduce the “original” Sale Deed belatedly during the appeal.

The High Court, however, not only upheld the Trial Court’s findings but went a step further to critically examine the suspicious nature of the Sale Deed and the unjustified delay in its production.

“Appellate Court Cannot Be a Platform for Rebuilding a Case Lost at Trial”: Additional Evidence Application Rejected

Relying heavily on binding Supreme Court precedents, especially Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 and H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy (2021) 5 SCC 241, the Court held that Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is not a carte blanche for litigants to fill evidentiary gaps at the appellate stage.

Justice Pushkarna stated: “It is thus clear that there are conditions precedent before allowing a party to adduce additional evidence at the stage of appeal, which specifically incorporates conditions to the effect that the party, in spite of due diligence, could not produce the evidence and the same cannot be allowed to be done at his leisure or sweet will.”

The appellant claimed that the original Sale Deed was unavailable during the trial as it had been mortgaged to a third party. However, no evidence was produced to prove the existence of the mortgage, no loan documents were filed, and the alleged mortgagee was never summoned to confirm the appellant’s version. Further, the document was produced only in 2025, despite the supposed recovery of the deed in 2019, showing a clear lack of due diligence.

“Forgery Suspected: Discrepancies Between Trial Copy and Original Sale Deed Raise Red Flags”

The Court undertook a detailed comparison of the Sale Deed filed before the Trial Court and the version produced during appeal and found material discrepancies that rendered the document dubious and legally unreliable.

The most glaring inconsistency was that the last page of the Sale Deed before the Trial Court bore no signature or thumb impression of the executant (mother), whereas the copy produced during appeal had both. No plausible explanation was offered for this transformation. The Court noted:

“The appellant has not explained how and when the thumb impression or signature of the mother appeared subsequently on the last page of the purported Sale Deed, when the same was missing in the copy of the registered document.”

Further, the signatures of the appellant on the photograph affixed to the Sale Deed also differed—the signature in the earlier version being fully across the photograph, while the new version showed a changed positioning, suggesting possible tampering.

Significantly, the appellant signed court documents in Hindi, whereas his signature on the Sale Deed was in English, despite admitting during cross-examination that he “cannot read English.” This further deepened the Court’s suspicion, which remarked:

“The fact that the appellant cannot read English but signed the Sale Deed in English, raises grave doubts about the genuineness of the execution.”

“Burden of Proof Lies Heavily on the One Who Asserts Ownership; Appellant Failed to Discharge It”

The Court was unequivocal that the burden to prove ownership lay squarely on the appellant, and merely producing a registered document was not enough in the face of glaring anomalies and lack of corroboration.

Justice Pushkarna noted: “When doubt had been created as to the veracity of the Sale Deed executed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi in the absence of her thumb impression or signature on the last page… the appellant was enjoined upon to produce cogent evidence… which the appellant failed to do.”

The Court also took note of the fact that the mother herself had instituted a suit for possession against the appellant, which significantly weakened the claim of a valid transfer of ownership in his favour.

No attesting witnesses were produced. No evidence of payment of sale consideration was shown—there was no receipt, no bank statement, and no indication of the source of funds. The appellant’s entire claim of purchase rested on an unverified, defective, and suspiciously presented Sale Deed.

“No License, No Proof, No Case”: Appellant’s Claim of Licensee Relationship Dismissed

The appellant's assertion that the respondent brother was residing in the property as a licensee was also found to be baseless. The Court pointed out that:

“No license agreement or document or any other evidence was produced before the Trial Court which would suggest that the occupation of respondent in the subject premises was as a licensee.”

The Court further observed that it was the respondent who was in continuous possession of the property, while the appellant admitted he did not reside there, contradicting his own assertions of control and ownership.

Appeal Dismissed, Trial Court Findings Affirmed

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court held that the appellant failed to establish his claim to ownership or to prove the Sale Deed’s validity. The attempt to introduce additional evidence was barred by procedural law, and the underlying transaction was surrounded by discrepancies that the Court could not ignore.

Justice Mini Pushkarna concluded: “When the appellant has failed to prove his ownership over the subject property and has been unable to establish his ownership in any manner, the premise of filing the suit for possession is not fulfilled.”

Accordingly, the Regular First Appeal and all connected applications were dismissed.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2025